Which would have nothing to do with the hope such things did not happen again, would it?

Considering the number of such weapons, the increased power of the existing weapons compared to the two deployed, and the number of groups having and wanting to have them, any concern over the use should be considerable.

The psychological impact of the atomic weapons probably saved more lives than were lost since the B-29 bombing raid of Tokyo, for example, inflicted significant casualties in comparison.

Hiroshima 90,000–166,000 Nagasaki 60,000–80,000 Tokyo 88,000-100,000

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Actually, I'd hope that not a single additional bullet have to be fired. Concern is warranted even before that, but yeah, moreso as magnitude of the firepower increases. The level of deterrence also grows accordingly.

The pictures are horrifying, and that is nothing compared to a 1 megaton bomb's destruction, or a 10- 1 megaton warheads in a geometric pattern blast from a MIRV.It is awful to contemplate, but they could be the salvation of mankind. IF the slums of 500 cities were taken out with .5 mgt, enough would be killed to start a population crash and the resulting aerial particulates would temporarily cool the planet. In the aftermath, the far less people would use far less fossil fuels, aquifers, soils, and perhaps be able to live sustainably in peace. There would be a certain amount of positive evolution with the targeting of slums.Certainly better than a man made disease which has no selectivity toward sustainability.The natural crash will happen later, with further environmental destruction, malevolent climate change, long term depletion of aquifers and soils, and take a higher percentage of the population, with doubtful positive selectivity. The natural crash will have countless horrors, too. The sooner the better for the biosphere and survivability of the human species.Actually, the first thing that came to mind with the pictures, was Detroit!

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

The pictures are horrifying, and that is nothing compared to a 1 megaton bomb's destruction, or a 10- 1 megaton warheads in a geometric pattern blast from a MIRV.It is awful to contemplate, but they could be the salvation of mankind. IF the slums of 500 cities were taken out with .5 mgt, enough would be killed to start a population crash and the resulting aerial particulates would temporarily cool the planet. In the aftermath, the far less people would use far less fossil fuels, aquifers, soils, and perhaps be able to live sustainably in peace. There would be a certain amount of positive evolution with the targeting of slums.Certainly better than a man made disease which has no selectivity toward sustainability.The natural crash will happen later, with further environmental destruction, malevolent climate change, long term depletion of aquifers and soils, and take a higher percentage of the population, with doubtful positive selectivity. The natural crash will have countless horrors, too. The sooner the better for the biosphere and survivability of the human species.Actually, the first thing that came to mind with the pictures, was Detroit!

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

It is awful to contemplate, but they could be the salvation of mankind. IF the slums of 500 cities were taken out with .5 mgt, enough would be killed to start a population crash and the resulting aerial particulates would temporarily cool the planet. In the aftermath, the far less people would use far less fossil fuels, aquifers, soils, and perhaps be able to live sustainably in peace. There would be a certain amount of positive evolution with the targeting of slums.Certainly better than a man made disease which has no selectivity toward sustainability.The natural crash will happen later, with further environmental destruction, malevolent climate change, long term depletion of aquifers and soils, and take a higher percentage of the population, with doubtful positive selectivity. The natural crash will have countless horrors, too. The sooner the better for the biosphere and survivability of the human species.The main thing is to keep the amount of detonations to a good margin less than required for nuclear winter.I can hardly believe I have not been attacked for being politically incorrect, or something like that!!

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

I take it that a more ethical approach would be allowing more folks to suffer and die off via natural collapse (that we were reasonably sure was going to happen) rather than culling fewer in advance to prevent. 'Course, visibility is the real issue, isn't it? If we were to cull, the media circus created of it and opinions on both sides would be strong enough to bring on sheer mayhem anyway. Better to play it safe and let things crumble in their own due time. That way, no one really knows how many suffer and die because survivors will generally keep to themselves with minimal contact outside of

We are working on a specific retrovirus that will target the DNA notfound in Caucasian Anglo-Saxons with higher IQ levels. The retrovirus will trigger an advanced aging process which will cause death by old age or other associated natural causes within a matter of weeks. We plan to cut off any below an IQ of 140 with the exception of a few who will be used for manual labor. Those few will have to be kept in isolation until the retrovirus times out. If that fails, those with an IQ below 145 or possibly 150 will have to be our manual laborers.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I guess I'm a target at only 138IQ and being in the top 3% in the US--eh?. What we are looking for is survival of the top 10% of humanity. That would be those over 106 IQ or so, and 700 million to keep civilization going sustainably, with knowledge and morals to keep it that way. Of course most would have to do physical labor to stay fit and fed.I doubt such a retrovirus could be made safely.No, it will be the crash by 2050, back to a more primitive a sparser living arrangement. The horrors of cannibal gangs died off, the stench of death mostly gone, and the temperature rising along with the sea level. There will be some radio contact between surviving groups. Some will have witnessed humanity at its worst and mass death, while others will have been remote from it. Some will have fought and killed for their group. The oceans will be polluted poisonous soups, and the climate unreliable to grow crops, as the heat continues to rise. Floods, fires and droughts worse than this year, as desertified soils blow. More and more species dying off including entire forests, but the rivers will be getting mostly better in non-flooded/non-drought areas, where they will be muddy and filled with remnants of heavy metals from past fertilization. But the heat rising, when will it stop?

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

I think there was enough nuclear bombs to destry the world at least 100 times over in the early 80's now probably a couple of warheads sent over 5 minutes would kiill all living creatures besides cockroaches. If they could do that in the 40's, the scary thing what could be done today 70 years later?